Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

How much collateral is required to enter a short position (this number is hard-coded at 2x in Bitshares XT).

This one's obviously really important; if more collateral is required, the less likely it is that the system will collapse 2008-real-estate-market-style. On the other hand, if less collateral is required, it will be possible for more BitAssets to exist and this presumably should spur greater economic activity.

How much collateral is required to enter a short position (this number is hard-coded at 2x in Bitshares XT).

This one's obviously really important; if more collateral is required, the less likely it is that the system will collapse 2008-real-estate-market-style. On the other hand, if less collateral is required, it will be possible for more BitAssets to exist and this presumably should spur greater economic activity.

Reducing the collateral requirement does not make it possible for more BitAssets to exist, it merely increases the risk in the system. In fact, one could argue that we should increase the collateral requirement right from day one as the result would merely limit the amount of leverage possible in the system while improving price stability. I am not sure there is any benefit to lowering the collateral required to short.

Logged

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.orgAnything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else. These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

I say we use a little bit of physics and biology to guide us.Energy can neither be created nor destroyed only transferred.The number of prey is larger than the number of predators because when an organism eats plants food only a fraction of the energy the plant obtained actually makes it to the organism that ate the plant. When a carnivore eats the animal that ate the plant it receives an even smaller fraction of the initial energy obtained from the plant makes it to the carnivore.

This is part of something larger. Whenever I have my thoughts better organized I will post.

How much collateral is required to enter a short position (this number is hard-coded at 2x in Bitshares XT).

This one's obviously really important; if more collateral is required, the less likely it is that the system will collapse 2008-real-estate-market-style. On the other hand, if less collateral is required, it will be possible for more BitAssets to exist and this presumably should spur greater economic activity.

Reducing the collateral requirement does not make it possible for more BitAssets to exist, it merely increases the risk in the system. In fact, one could argue that we should increase the collateral requirement right from day one as the result would merely limit the amount of leverage possible in the system while improving price stability. I am not sure there is any benefit to lowering the collateral required to short.

how does reducing the collateral requirement not make it possible for more BitAssets to exist?it would be like reducing the reserve requirement in a bank. by increasing the maximum amount of short positions that can exist you can thereby increase the maximum amount of BitAssets that can be created. I think this is one of the most important variables to dynamically engage with. It seems that the consensus on this variable would demonstrate the prediction for the greatest possible liquidity in the system without becoming unstable.

There is no limit on the number of BitAssets that can be created regardless of reserve requirements because there is no limit on the price ratio.

Logged

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.orgAnything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else. These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

So it's a bank. And it 'prints' bitUSD so it's a central bank.So how can we decide the central bank policy? By president of this central bank?Not the decentralized free market our solution?We are Ideal Free Market Financial System.

UPDATE:Fixed parameter is not good. Fixed is dead.How can a DAC be alive without being dynamically configurable by decentralized market?

Canonizer.com makes decisions like this by meritocracy consensus delegated from the masses. Let's say everyone holding the currency gets a vote for each coin they own. Let's say lots of my friends and family aren't much interested in what makes a good collateral rate, and they know I'm a much better, interested expert than they. So they delegate all their coin votes to me. I, in turn, may delegate my entire tree of delegated coin votes to someone I think is far more intelligent than I, like Dan.

So Dan could have a large enough delegated authority to control significant changes in the entire network. And you could trust that everyone that mattered would be instantly fully on board with any decision he made, the instant he made it.

The instant he jumped to a camp requiring twice the equity, taking all his delegated coin votes with him, that could become the new consensus camp the entire network could then trust to use. If Dan ever screwed up, everyone would quickly delegate their authority to someone they trust better. This would give the system the power and agility of a hierarchy, with all authority being derived from the bottom up. Essentially a hyper delegate decision making meritocracy authority that in real time knows what everyone that matters is and isn't on board with, why, and what would be required to get them on board, and so on. This is part of what it means to amplify, educate and rigorously measure, concisely and quantitatively, the wisdom of the crowd.

« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 03:34:48 AM by Brent.Allsop »

Logged

clout

Canonizer.com makes decisions like this by meritocracy consensus delegated from the masses. Let's say everyone holding the currency gets a vote for each coin they own. Let's say lots of my friends and family aren't much interested in what makes a good collateral rate, and they know I'm a much better, interested expert than they. So they delegate all their coin votes to me. I, in turn, may delegate my entire tree of delegated coin votes to someone I think is far more intelligent than I, like Dan.

So Dan could have a large enough delegated authority to control significant changes in the entire network. And you could trust that everyone that mattered would be instantly fully on board with any decision he made, the instant he made it.

The instant he jumped to a camp requiring twice the equity, taking all his delegated coin votes with him, that could become the new consensus camp the entire network could then trust to use. If Dan ever screwed up, everyone would quickly delegate their authority to someone they trust better. This would give the system the power and agility of a hierarchy, with all authority being derived from the bottom up. Essentially a hyper delegate decision making meritocracy authority that in real time knows what everyone that matters is and isn't on board with, why, and what would be required to get them on board, and so on. This is part of what it means to amplify, educate and rigorously measure, concisely and quantitatively, the wisdom of the crowd.

Why wouldn't you use a prediction market. It would allow for consensus while using a monetary incentive for immediate and accurate consensus.

Why wouldn't you use a prediction market. It would allow for consensus while using a monetary incentive for immediate and accurate consensus.

You're thinking of this at the wrong level. Of course prediction markets could be used, and built on top of camps, should the expert consensus agree that was a good predictor. The consensus could specify the use of market caps of camps as part of the canonization algorithm. And there are lots of other ways to measure things that others would think is better. Not everyone wants to bet money on such things. But everything ultimately boils down to how much consensus do you have, and knowing who is and isn't on board, knowing concisely and quantitatively why, and what is required to get everyone not yet on board, on board.

Why wouldn't you use a prediction market. It would allow for consensus while using a monetary incentive for immediate and accurate consensus.

You're thinking of this at the wrong level. Of course prediction markets could be used, and built on top of camps, should the expert consensus agree that was a good predictor. And there are lots of other ways to measure things that others would think is better. Not everyone wants to bet money on such things. But everything ultimately boils down to how much consensus do you have, and knowing who is and isn't on board, knowing concisely and quantitatively why, and what is required to get everyone not yet on board, on board.

You cannot get everyone on board when their value systems are different.

Logged

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.orgAnything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else. These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

HOw about you release an HUGE amount of Bitshares clones each with different parameters even if it is just ONE difference and let the market decide? The DACS that don't offer the value the market wants will simply just die out while the ones that keep a large portion of people go on and succeed. I suggest we have chains that require 10% collateral and chains that require 1000% collateral. This isn't traditional banking so the chains that are unstable and vulnerable will simply fail and we should allow that to happen. Which means that before you start to speculate and put your hard earned dollars in any chain you better do your homework first and take calculated risks because if you lose your money it is entirely your fault and no one else.

Example for different parameter

Have some chains with a restriction on block size and others with very ample block size

clout

First and for must, each chain must garner enough participation to work at all. If you simply bombard the market, which is uncertain as to the empirical efficacy of this technology, the few enthusiastic participants will be spread so thinly between each chain that we cannot determine if the experiment at any level works. This is why it is best to start everyone on one chain, with as few assets as possible, and to make sure the initial parameters will allow for that chains success.

Additionally, I do not feel that a DAC has reached its ultimate autonomous state if it cannot in the most immediate fashion change its functionality as a result of external pressures. This is what every organism and organization must do in order to survive. The DAC must be able to adapt. For this reason I believe that as many variables as can be dynamically changed should be dynamically changed. From reading throughout this forum, it seems that prediction markets for these variables would be the most accurate and immediate way to form a consensus on any relative changes in the DAC's functionality that would serve to make the DAC more viable.

None of Bitshares x supposed competitors leverage the power of prediction markets, but instead use centralized external feeds to price assets. It is clear that these alternative DAC's (if they can be called that) are behind the innovation present in Bitshares x. Now think about how much further behind these competitors would be to bitshares or any subsequent DAC's that arise from what I3 is doing if the power of prediction markets was further leveraged to make them more dynamic and resilient.